And the chip design companies they bought and the chip design people they still employ are just there to improve their marketing too, right? The anti-Apple conspiracy arguments are getting weirder by the week. Yes, they base their chips on established designs and don't create every chip from whole cloth. But you don't get products into form factors like the MacBook Air, iPad, and iPod Touch by just throwing together off-the-shelf parts.
The ironic thing, IMHO, is that CGI increasingly enables longer shots. You can remove/add eyeblinks, background events, etc. CGI doesn't always mean Jar-Jar Binks... CGI you don't notice is all over every scene now.
Of course, if you buy Android you'll be using the extremely standards-compliant WebKit engine Apple put together to view the HTML5 content that Apple has been pushing over proprietary Flash/Applet models...
Windows 7 and Microsoft Office make up 95% of their profits, so the rest are-- to use an Apple phrase-- hobbies. They have subsidized XBox and Windows Phone 7 development with Windows/Office profits to the tune of billions of dollars. In 25 years they haven't created a new product line that's made more than a tiny fraction of their two big products. In comparison, Google didn't exist at all back then, and Apple gets 60% of its profits from products that didn't exist 4 years ago.
Fortunately, they don't have to go on what "seems logical". They have actual data. Science at work! Of course, being aware of the measurement in this case will change it for many users. (Quantum analogies at work!)
Apple is NOT the distributor, they are simply the hosting company. Each individual app author is distributing their apps using Apple's service. This is apparent in the fact that Apple does not give out 1099 tax forms, because they are not "paying" you, simply offering you a hosting and credit clearing service.
Not xbox-- that division has lost billions since inception. And not "etc.", either. Just Window and Office. Really, Microsoft never WAS a consumer company; it's always been a business company. So saying it's "no longer" a consumer brand is like saying that Apple no longer dominates the enterprise market.
In the past I've heard macs referred to as the ultimate developer's machine, with a full UNIX, all the gnu tools, a nice UI (with X if you need it), and nicely integrated laptop hardware. But Java is still one of the top languages on the planet, so if Apple really stops keeping it up to date that could put a nail in that coffin. Heck, I'm pretty sure the Apple Store has a big pile of Java back there...
Google dumped Apple into 3rd place and is the top selling smartphone OS and it sales rate is accelerating at a tremendous rate.
You have an interesting definition of the verb "sell". Apple makes over 50% of all the profit in the mobile handset world despite their tiny market share (which is currently about the same as Google's if you exclude iPod Touch and iPad). Google gives Android away for free, and carriers are doing the same with free or buy-one-get-one deals. Profit drives innovation, so we'll see where things stand in a few years. No one can afford to keep giving things away for free indefinitely, so when users start paying the true costs are they still going to prefer it?
Could include some now-extinct cats like sabre-toothed ones. But you're probably right... MacOS X is now about 10 years old and is probably due for a major rejiggering soon.
Near as I can tell, that's because the authors haven't actually published a rendering. Here's their original paper (PDF). It contains lots of graphs of spirals and curves, but no pretty pictures for us illiterates.
Before we get a million "Adobe does this!" comments RTFA: "Microsoft applied for the patent titled "Accelerated video encoding using a graphics processing unit" in October 2004"
Far as I know no one was doing this in 2004
Still not enough information. Patent claims can change between the original filing and the version that gets granted by amending the patent application. It's done by trolls... get a patent application going and keep it in limbo. Someone else comes to market with something cool, and you add it to your patent application. If it gets approved, viola! You have a patent that is "back-dated" years before the invention hit the market.
I'd be curious to see exactly what the patent said in 2004 and compare that to the then state-of-the-art.
Which is why the parents should have held-out for more money. If for example the damages were 2 million, the lawyer would get his 425,000*, and the students would get 1.6 million.
And what do you think the lawyer was advising the parents to do? He already gets his cut.
I'll bet it will tell us that the elephant population has recently quadrupled. Seriously... I know people who seem to have been educated solely from the internet and it's not something to aspire to.
I doubt it. Any project can be made arbitrarily expensive by political maneuvering, and selling a township or even a state on "Hey, we've got a brand new type of nuclear fission reactor we'd like to try out in your area" suffers from serious NIMBY effects, and thus politicians will try to be seen opposing it.
Closed darwin? Go ahead and download it for 10.6.4, the latest MacOS release. You'll want the "xnu" package, and its pretty easy to Google for instructions on building it and replacing an installed MacOS's kernel with it.
It's true Apple doesn't release the closely-related iOS kernel, but they never have.
The fact remains that the US generates the same percentage GDP from manufacturing as it always has, more per capita, and more goods than ever. It just does it with robots, so it anecdotally seems like manufacturing is in decline. It's true that more is traded from abroad since NAFTA and cross-Pacific agreements have made that cheaper, and why not? That doesn't mean we manufacture less or our manufacturing is less significant. Our economy is still twice the size of the next biggest and the manufacturing is still the same percentage of that it's always been.
It's true that China's manufacturing growth is phenomenal. They also have 1/5 of the world's population. When you have 4x more population than the US and you industrialize you're going to produce a lot. It's a pretty clear sign of the US's strength, through, how much we manufacture given our population.
The trade imbalance is, more than anything, a sign that China needs to normalize its currency exchange rates and allow them to float on the market. Otherwise it's simply a reflection of Chinese isolationist policies that should be met with increasing tariffs to bring the currencies back into balance.
Your graph is simply comparing the amount we import vs. the amount we export. It has nothing to do with how much we manufacture, since we're also the biggest consumers of our own manufacturing and thus our manufacturing prowess has little effect on the trade imbalance.
Here is a nice little summary. In short, since 1950 employment in manufacturing has steadily declined, while manufacturing continues to be almost exactly the same percentage of GDP it has for many, many decades.
I'm not sure what country you're referring to. The United States manufactures more than ever. It's the manufacturing engineering you mention, though, that has steadily reduced the number of people required to drive our manufacturing industry.
Good for you. Next time you're denied a job because they looked you up and found some questionable group affiliations... well, you're not even going to know about it because they won't tell you why.
Hasn't Windows been on tablets since tablets were first sold, several years ago?
Well, no, not since they were first sold. The tablet form factor even predates Apple's Newton introduced in 1993, although that's probably the first really well-known incarnation. At the time Windows was at version 3.1, with Windows 95 still over a year away and Windows NT just seeing the light of day.
if China closed its ports tomorrow, who would blink first: them, or the rest of the world?
If China tried that, it wouldn't actually happen and would show the lack of power their central government actually wages. It would probably lead to the overthrow of the Chinese government long before it brought down any foreign power.
Up to now, China has been a most benign economic superpower, certainly far less abusive than Russia, the EU or the USA who engage in round-robin economic blackmail pretty much constantly.
China's entire currency system is economic blackmail. By all rights it should have appreciated an extra 50%, and the rest of the world is increasingly unwilling to succumb to such blackmail.
If China ever start punching at their actual weight - for example, asking what exactly they can buy with the trillions of foreign currency that they're sitting on - then we'll all be they beeyatches.
They can't "buy" anything with it. They have to hold on to it in order to artificially affect the exchange rates of the currencies. Their dependence on US debt purchases for this means WE have THEM over a barrel. Relatively minor policy changes on our part could have sweeping effects on the valuation of their entire economic system. Of course, they have nowhere else to dump the money so they continue to rely on US debt purchases despite its weakness. Imagine if 90% of your 401K was also kept in your company's stock... think Enron's employees... that's what China is potentially setting itself up for by buying so much debt from their biggest trading partner and the largest economy in the world.
That they did not spend a crazy amount of money on what ended up in the U.S. as a net negative to what we COULD of had
In many ways, Buran was what the US could have had. It had no SSMEs, which remain one of the most complex engine systems ever built. It had no solid rocket boosters, which caused Challenger's demise and severely limited the failure modes of the vehicle. And it could be operated entirely by computer and remote control, meaning for many missions no crew or their equipment need consume launch weight.
It lacked capabilities that Shuttle had, but it was a pretty reasonable compromise that would have probably had significantly higher return on investment.
Slashdot Mirror
And the chip design companies they bought and the chip design people they still employ are just there to improve their marketing too, right? The anti-Apple conspiracy arguments are getting weirder by the week. Yes, they base their chips on established designs and don't create every chip from whole cloth. But you don't get products into form factors like the MacBook Air, iPad, and iPod Touch by just throwing together off-the-shelf parts.
The ironic thing, IMHO, is that CGI increasingly enables longer shots. You can remove/add eyeblinks, background events, etc. CGI doesn't always mean Jar-Jar Binks... CGI you don't notice is all over every scene now.
Of course, if you buy Android you'll be using the extremely standards-compliant WebKit engine Apple put together to view the HTML5 content that Apple has been pushing over proprietary Flash/Applet models...
Windows 7 and Microsoft Office make up 95% of their profits, so the rest are-- to use an Apple phrase-- hobbies. They have subsidized XBox and Windows Phone 7 development with Windows/Office profits to the tune of billions of dollars. In 25 years they haven't created a new product line that's made more than a tiny fraction of their two big products. In comparison, Google didn't exist at all back then, and Apple gets 60% of its profits from products that didn't exist 4 years ago.
Where is a $1.5M verdict when you need one?
Seriously, though, I'll bet half the folks complaining on Facebook have illegally downloaded music themselves.
Fortunately, they don't have to go on what "seems logical". They have actual data. Science at work! Of course, being aware of the measurement in this case will change it for many users. (Quantum analogies at work!)
Apple is NOT the distributor, they are simply the hosting company. Each individual app author is distributing their apps using Apple's service. This is apparent in the fact that Apple does not give out 1099 tax forms, because they are not "paying" you, simply offering you a hosting and credit clearing service.
Not xbox-- that division has lost billions since inception. And not "etc.", either. Just Window and Office. Really, Microsoft never WAS a consumer company; it's always been a business company. So saying it's "no longer" a consumer brand is like saying that Apple no longer dominates the enterprise market.
In the past I've heard macs referred to as the ultimate developer's machine, with a full UNIX, all the gnu tools, a nice UI (with X if you need it), and nicely integrated laptop hardware. But Java is still one of the top languages on the planet, so if Apple really stops keeping it up to date that could put a nail in that coffin. Heck, I'm pretty sure the Apple Store has a big pile of Java back there...
You have an interesting definition of the verb "sell". Apple makes over 50% of all the profit in the mobile handset world despite their tiny market share (which is currently about the same as Google's if you exclude iPod Touch and iPad). Google gives Android away for free, and carriers are doing the same with free or buy-one-get-one deals. Profit drives innovation, so we'll see where things stand in a few years. No one can afford to keep giving things away for free indefinitely, so when users start paying the true costs are they still going to prefer it?
Could include some now-extinct cats like sabre-toothed ones. But you're probably right... MacOS X is now about 10 years old and is probably due for a major rejiggering soon.
Near as I can tell, that's because the authors haven't actually published a rendering. Here's their original paper (PDF). It contains lots of graphs of spirals and curves, but no pretty pictures for us illiterates.
Still not enough information. Patent claims can change between the original filing and the version that gets granted by amending the patent application. It's done by trolls... get a patent application going and keep it in limbo. Someone else comes to market with something cool, and you add it to your patent application. If it gets approved, viola! You have a patent that is "back-dated" years before the invention hit the market.
I'd be curious to see exactly what the patent said in 2004 and compare that to the then state-of-the-art.
And what do you think the lawyer was advising the parents to do? He already gets his cut.
I'll bet it will tell us that the elephant population has recently quadrupled. Seriously... I know people who seem to have been educated solely from the internet and it's not something to aspire to.
I doubt it. Any project can be made arbitrarily expensive by political maneuvering, and selling a township or even a state on "Hey, we've got a brand new type of nuclear fission reactor we'd like to try out in your area" suffers from serious NIMBY effects, and thus politicians will try to be seen opposing it.
Or about the size of 1 book from the Library of Congress.
Closed darwin? Go ahead and download it for 10.6.4, the latest MacOS release. You'll want the "xnu" package, and its pretty easy to Google for instructions on building it and replacing an installed MacOS's kernel with it.
It's true Apple doesn't release the closely-related iOS kernel, but they never have.
The fact remains that the US generates the same percentage GDP from manufacturing as it always has, more per capita, and more goods than ever. It just does it with robots, so it anecdotally seems like manufacturing is in decline. It's true that more is traded from abroad since NAFTA and cross-Pacific agreements have made that cheaper, and why not? That doesn't mean we manufacture less or our manufacturing is less significant. Our economy is still twice the size of the next biggest and the manufacturing is still the same percentage of that it's always been.
It's true that China's manufacturing growth is phenomenal. They also have 1/5 of the world's population. When you have 4x more population than the US and you industrialize you're going to produce a lot. It's a pretty clear sign of the US's strength, through, how much we manufacture given our population.
The trade imbalance is, more than anything, a sign that China needs to normalize its currency exchange rates and allow them to float on the market. Otherwise it's simply a reflection of Chinese isolationist policies that should be met with increasing tariffs to bring the currencies back into balance.
Your graph is simply comparing the amount we import vs. the amount we export. It has nothing to do with how much we manufacture, since we're also the biggest consumers of our own manufacturing and thus our manufacturing prowess has little effect on the trade imbalance.
Here is a nice little summary. In short, since 1950 employment in manufacturing has steadily declined, while manufacturing continues to be almost exactly the same percentage of GDP it has for many, many decades.
I'm not sure what country you're referring to. The United States manufactures more than ever. It's the manufacturing engineering you mention, though, that has steadily reduced the number of people required to drive our manufacturing industry.
Good for you. Next time you're denied a job because they looked you up and found some questionable group affiliations... well, you're not even going to know about it because they won't tell you why.
Well, no, not since they were first sold. The tablet form factor even predates Apple's Newton introduced in 1993, although that's probably the first really well-known incarnation. At the time Windows was at version 3.1, with Windows 95 still over a year away and Windows NT just seeing the light of day.
If China tried that, it wouldn't actually happen and would show the lack of power their central government actually wages. It would probably lead to the overthrow of the Chinese government long before it brought down any foreign power.
China's entire currency system is economic blackmail. By all rights it should have appreciated an extra 50%, and the rest of the world is increasingly unwilling to succumb to such blackmail.
They can't "buy" anything with it. They have to hold on to it in order to artificially affect the exchange rates of the currencies. Their dependence on US debt purchases for this means WE have THEM over a barrel. Relatively minor policy changes on our part could have sweeping effects on the valuation of their entire economic system. Of course, they have nowhere else to dump the money so they continue to rely on US debt purchases despite its weakness. Imagine if 90% of your 401K was also kept in your company's stock... think Enron's employees... that's what China is potentially setting itself up for by buying so much debt from their biggest trading partner and the largest economy in the world.
In many ways, Buran was what the US could have had. It had no SSMEs, which remain one of the most complex engine systems ever built. It had no solid rocket boosters, which caused Challenger's demise and severely limited the failure modes of the vehicle. And it could be operated entirely by computer and remote control, meaning for many missions no crew or their equipment need consume launch weight.
It lacked capabilities that Shuttle had, but it was a pretty reasonable compromise that would have probably had significantly higher return on investment.